After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution authorizes the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. Since 2001 the law has been used to approve military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to give the President the powers to act quickly in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. Opponents argue that all U.S. military conflicts should have Congressional approval and this act has been used in military conflicts that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
Yes, if it is of immediate concern. It takes Congress too long to decide anything.
Only if Must be clear and present danger
It depends on the situation and what he wants to do specifically
Only in extreme circumstances that are time sensitive
Yes, but, via the War Powers Resolution Act (1973), the President must notify Congress 48 hours before military action and must get permission from Congress after 60 days.
Yes, if the congress is taking to long to make a decision, however, the president must be shown to be an intelligent and tacit military leader.
If the situation puts our country at risk then yes.
Congress should approve the decision, but have America's safety at heart, not partisan politics
Depends on the definition of “military force”
Only when their isn't time
It depends - 9/11 yes, other situations maybe
Emergency situations need immediate response and doesnt not permit time for Congress to approve. Well planned strategic attack should be approved by congress
Only if credible intelligence is available for an imminent attack on US soil
Should be limited in scope and duration. More requires congress
no, but congress should have to answer within a certain amount of time to ensure that things get done
No, unless they show hostility or they cannot be taken peacefully
yes but only in a state of crisis such as invasion
the president should only authorize if 100% necessary
Only in isolated incidents
no with his mental capacity he's not gonna have a plan b and is gonna get us all killed.
Yes, only when there is substantial evidence of a terrorist attack plan against the United States or our allies.
That is the president’s right in the constitution
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions are not legitimate countries and governments, so the president should have the authority to launch strikes against them so long as it doesn't bring other opposition country to get involved. I believe that congress is to slow to act against a highly mobile individual, making the need for the president to have the authority to authorize a strike necessary. Unless the president is ordering a strike that will lead to a prolonged war with a foreign power, I believe that the president should have restricted power to use the military against a illegitimate government.
If it involves going to war with an actual country, then no. Congress needs to approve that. If it’s going after very specific groups, then yes.
Military should decide what needs to be done if they are deployed in a terrorist location
I think I do not have enough information to answer this question
they aint our problem no more
not informed on this topic
Yes, but a meeting about it or getting others council would be nice.
Approval of some council in emergency situations
It depends. If it is internal, then most certainly so. If i is external it should require the use of congress.
Yes, but maybe not a president that handles out of the belly.
Yes, but Congress should be informed of the actions and have oversight of too much force use.
Yes, for 90 days as prescribed in the Constitution.
I believe the president should be able to make that decision if there is only a limited amount of time to decide, but congress should vote otherwise.
Yes, but with a select few trusted members of the House and Senate whom are trusted not to leak any top secret intelligence.
Yes, the president should be allowed to defend against organizations that threaten the U.S.A, but they can't declare war or attack first.
Only if in desperate need and emergency
yes yes yes they will know were coming and have time to move the people they kill are horrible people and why is this even consider
Yes, But only if they did something first and we needed to act on it right away.
Yes and no because what if he does something horrible for the country.
Yes, In an emergency situation
If the situation requires a very quick reaction and if time is spent waiting for approval lives could be lost then yes.
If the situation permits and congress is deadlocked, then it is acceptable
Yes, only if we are in grave danger.
The president is the commander in chief, so he should be able to do that.
Only if it is clear that an attack is approaching
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
